In a 2 player game, if the first player gets 4 to start, then unless the map is so skewed that both players are directly opposite, he'll be able to find four territories to take with no chance of losing them the next round. Many places you wouldn't even need to deploy: if you have two territories next to one, you'll take it. Try applying this to any game you've just started, and see how many you can take over. It'll be a lot more than you could take with dice.

Not quite, and the first player could never take more than 2 terries....

start=3 per terry, so the first player places 4 armies on one terry. Same player takes terry 1, loses 3 in attack, has to leave one behind, so moves 3 in. this now means just 4 on the next attacking terry against 3, so has to use armies from another surrounding terry to reduce to 2 before attacking, then takes. great, but player then has 3 terries with just 1 army on each.

Due to current economic conditions the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off

the dice are the heart of the game, it wouldn't be fun anymore if there wasn't a sort of risk to it, and what would you do in cases like 11 vs 10, i won a roll like this without losing any armies with you solution it would have resulted in losing all my armies. but what about the crazy attack: 20 vs 33? 5 vs 9?

"Bullets kill, grenades kill, bayonets kill, the cold kills. Death has a thousand faces. The worst of them all: the Court Martial."

what about in games like 2.1 or maps where players get 5+ men, they could place a 2, a 2 and a 1 and guarantie that they take 2 areas for sure, this cuts their opponent down to 4 guys per round (an even bigger effect in world 2.1)

Good point, bet Fruit hadn't though about that, I had not, never play it myself. Notwithstanding that...it would be an option, not compulsory...surely this increases the attractiveness of the site rather than detracts from it.

Fruitcake wrote:Not quite, and the first player could never take more than 2 terries....

start=3 per terry, so the first player places 4 armies on one terry. Same player takes terry 1, loses 3 in attack, has to leave one behind, so moves 3 in. this now means just 4 on the next attacking terry against 3, so has to use armies from another surrounding terry to reduce to 2 before attacking, then takes. great, but player then has 3 terries with just 1 army on each.

If this ever gets implemented (which it won't, it's been suggested and rejected because it doesn't make sense), sign me up for a hundred games against you. You're forgetting that you start with more than one territory, so there are support troops scattered around the map. It would be very unlikely to come up with a drop where you CAN'T take 3 territories and not leave any singles exposed.

the dice are the heart of the game, it wouldn't be fun anymore if there wasn't a sort of risk to it, and what would you do in cases like 11 vs 10, i won a roll like this without losing any armies with you solution it would have resulted in losing all my armies. but what about the crazy attack: 20 vs 33? 5 vs 9?

I disagree, dice are not at the heart of the game, strategy is.
your examples:
11v10, that is why strategy would be more important.
20v33? 5vs9, I think the pertinant word is 'crazy'

Due to current economic conditions the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off

If this ever gets implemented (which it won't, it's been suggested and rejected because it doesn't make sense), sign me up for a hundred games against you. You're forgetting that you start with more than one territory, so there are support troops scattered around the map. It would be very unlikely to come up with a drop where you CAN'T take 3 territories and not leave any singles exposed.

have you played a no dice game?

Due to current economic conditions the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off

owenshooter wrote:i want a poll, damnit!!! where is the poll!! a guy as clever as you are, and you can't figure out how to add a poll?!! get with it fruity!!!-0

Agreed!

Personally i instinctively don;t like the idea but you make some good points.

For me it would mean that a good lump of the emotion and drama would be taken out of the game.
Imagine Formula one without the crashes! Sheese that would be like watching pants go around in a washing machine.

Imagine in Football if every decision, in every game were correct and decided by flawless computers which measured every movement.
It would take away a huge portion of the injustice which keeps us all talking in pubs and coming back for more. The game requires a good but imperfect referee. Our 'Random' dice serve as our flawed adjudicator.

The element of luck keeps the best players trying and the worst interested.
If people wanted purely a battle of unadulterated wits, CC would stand for Chess Club!
The dice act as a cushion to soften the acceptance of our intellectual inadequacies and a brake on our cognitive bravura.

In short by taking away the dice you fundamentally alter the dynamics and essence of the game.